High Court Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Shivashankar Nair on 7 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Shivashankar Nair on 7 August, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
iN THE Hififi CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT Bfigaéajéigtéieét  ~

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY (BF. :2'09'9«k  

BEFORE}  V
THE HOIVPBLE MR.";..::3:3T1c§Ev-fi.A:§Ar§V't)§a_j~---V. 
M.F.A.NQ.§31§...<j';'?.*:é;{3Q8f§\riV§.._. 

BETWEEN:

I. THE DiViSiC2¥NA._L wnNzu:';1:R..  V "" "
THE &iNi*:f_E;.D"iN:;:IA'm<3U~RANCE <30. LT'1T).,
L1 0. Ne::,v=,.. _ST~'-{i%iANF.$sRAN;*.RAYANA BLDG,
2 mo<3R;%.M..mu;,-- 1=+?.«§is:tE,«..;~::9..;2s, SHANKARANA}?AY£sNA
M.G;=R'OAD :3AN'GA1L,0IaE, 13? ITS

_MANAC:E;R V V   APPELIAINFI'

 -  (B;.{«'i:f:.zui.E  R§\WSfiFxN.KA£<, ABVOCATE}

  ;s;ii'%2;as;i_£s.1%%;§AR NAB?

' , AGEDLABGUT 5:") YEARS,
 5-:;'j(37 §§I3:'¥.A{'.HU'1'AN NMR,
1% ;';%_'I' 190.1232,
x J av,/...::;~ ELNARASIMHAMURTHY
' SW! A CROSS, 6TH MMN,
* ._  }{.N.EXT'ENS}€3N,
TREVENI RGAD,
v;::9,HWANfi'nP1I9A,
BA1\EG.£§LORE 22
PERMANENF R/AT
OMNAGAR €':EI¥.F§ARGA.



2. SM'? MANGALA

AGED AEGUT 4'7 YEARS,

W/O S¥?!.SH¥VASHANKAF.' NAIR,
RfA'i' NCL1232,

CIO D.NARASiMHAMUR'I'HY
ST}-i A CROSS, 6TH MAHKI,   "
K. N. EXTENSION, 1.
TRIVE'2Ni R0313,
YESHWADFIHFURA,
BANGALORE 22

PERMANENT KIA'?

QMNAGAR GUIBARGA_

3. MISS REKHA  . ._  . V «
AGEI3 ABOUT 23 YEARS, *  
ngo SRi.SH!VASHANK;£\)R_ wm:.=',
I"~2fA'I' NO.1L32, 1 ~  "  . A4
010 D.N;sR£aSI'£dH£a_ML:RT'HY««. 'V  ..

STH A (moss, .*1'H'MA!N,
   
Tfizvmi 161355;), ' . . ..
Y,E2S¥~IVi{A'§!fPHF'§.IwRA;,-.. 
rsarmgzozegzza 

PER:v:.I3NEi'1'f' R}'}=~.{T" 
_()MNA(;A}2 GI}s.¥aARc';A.

 *  _ 4.   <iH.xNDR}L'KU«:v5AR

 ' ACZ.EE3_£XBOU'i' 43 YEARS,
"  S;,i_O'*V.NA%&_§i}NhIAH,
 %3.W1'*{Ef% jm?..q'HE TRUCK
"-.7Rf8;'i7'."NO',::17i5, P.C.'I'. EXTENSION,
 r;s*rmc'r,
" 1<aLA;:2"363 101.  RESPONDENTS

= (By Sri.”V”s N mmmva £42395? F01? C;[R.i-3:
V N'(“3fE’I(1F. TO R4 DISPENSER WITH)

MFA FILED UIS 173(1) OF MV ACT’ AGAINST THE

V’ ‘”;rtrn(:M1a:m ANT) AwAn¥3 m.’r*1f«:n: QBQQOOS PASE§i32¥3 ¥?~i MVC

NO. E3183/ZOGE5 ON THE. FKLE OF THE HI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL CA{I§§ES, MEMBER, MACT’, METROPOLITIAN AREA,

…”¥’1″:é: “<':cm.ter1_t"s 0f't=',xE'1*iVhit R3 are not snflicient tn pmve

thfiait' not permitted to drive heavy goods

'.;0_t %.'na(ie any reference ta nniadfin weight of vehicle to

VA .. _»V_j:f1stify* its contention that the driving licence was issued

4. The imamefi counsel for insurance cotgngmginy
would submit that the insured vehicle is 3
vehicle thfirefore, the ririver of insured
holding a Vaiid and efi”e%::~icsd. and 14.4.2005. The

licence was fenéfwéti Viai respect of transport vehicle.

vézhicie… . ‘

“Bg§%”nm the tribunai the insurance company had

to drive a specified ciass of vehicie.

The enntentrion of insurance e0mpany.’that:’fh35i”vifivg;tt ~

iieenee does not relate to 3 tran_s-:.pm_1f; ve”hieie’%:§-1rii’1(§:tVtx:V V’

accepted in View of the definitidix _’

under Section ‘2{2l) ofthe Meter’ “Act. ” L’

Therefore, the tI1’hu r1a1 the
mrttention of the fastened
iiahility on 2

5. (” t?je.mHetter, E do not find
any the findings of the
r.a~ibmVi:a_:.” ” A’ t t V

_ is dismissed.

The ;am01im;——e–eposited by the insurance cempany

$%’1§;l:’}f:1’§’§,Ai’v)<*3:':V§.?i4§'31V'E'1:é-f:«'fff'f'('3('i'f0 mam' 83 eeee- I8, Bangalore.

— ‘ Theféafties are (iireeted to bear their costs.

IUDGE